The BMJ Editor-in-Chief, Fiona Godlee, knew of all the problems with the vaccines 4 months before a single one was authorized. How did she know?

This is amazing.  BMJ Editor Godlee knew in August 2020, when the phase 3 vaccine trials were just getting started, that the vaccines:

a) would not be very effective

b) would likely just decrease severity of illness and not prevent infection

c) might become a suboptimal, chronic treatment, and 

d) might change the definition of what we consider a vaccine to be 

How did she know this?  I imagine she knew it from a whistleblower or two or ten.  The public certainly didn't know it.  If she knew it Fauci knew it, along with his Corona Task Force of useful idiots.

Peter Hotez also knew, in November 2020, the vaccine would not prevent spread and would only reduce severity:

Why didn’t the people know this????  Who sent these people the memo???

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89512

"Peter Hotez, MD, PhD, of Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, observed that for the next few months, producing vaccines for the American population will be problematic, so it won't be an issue in this country for a while.

"Even as the first vaccines become more widely available they may be only partially protective to reduce severity of illness and won't stop transmission anyway so we won't need to pay people for that purpose," he told MedPage Today. "So I don't foresee a reason to pay anyone to get vaccinated against COVID-19."'

https://www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3258

Covid-19: Less haste, more safety

BMJ 2020; 370 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3258 

(Published 20 August 2020) BMJ 2020;370:m3258  Fiona Godlee, editor in chief

"Few can doubt that we need a vaccine for covid-19 as soon as possible, and great strides are being made, including in our understanding of the immunology of SARS-CoV-2.1 But what damage may result from the race to create one? The World Health Organization has produced guidance on minimum characteristics for a vaccine, including 50% efficacy, temperature stability, potential for rapid scale-up, and proper evaluation against comparators. But, writes Els Torreele, these basic requirements are being rapidly eroded by the prevailing view that anything is better than nothing.2 So instead we are heading for vaccines that reduce severity of illness rather than protect against infection, provide only short lived immunity, and will at best have been trialled by the manufacturer against placebo. As well as damaging public confidence and wasting global resources by distributing a poorly effective vaccine, this could change what we understand a vaccine to be. Instead of long term, effective disease prevention it could become a suboptimal chronic treatment. This would be good for business but bad for global public health."